agentleFS
allemaarallemaar/open-skills/skills/extract-signal/SKILL.md

extract-signal

Skill15 starsChanged 16 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

An elastic signal-extraction methodology run under /multi-agent-mode. INFERS from the call what signal, what form, what stakes, and where output goes. Default is agentic — the root coordinates freshly-primed gathering and separate review workers; when extract-signal IS the agent (in-session / new-session) it works inline with output inline by default (or to a file if specified). Composes techniques per task: gather (/prime-sweep, /prime-fetch, /prime-expand), diverge (/insight-explore), vet (/insight-critique → /insight-assess), cold second opinion (/cold-review-style). Vetting scales with stakes; the presented signal carries provenance and is sensitivity-matched to its destination. Trigger on /extract-signal, "extract the signal on X and present it as Y", "gather + vet + report the signal about X". Not the prime-* / insight-* / cold-review skills it composes; not /multi-agent-mode (the mode it runs under).

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    MUST infer the signal request from the call.

    line 129
  2. Distinctive:

    MUST default to root-owned agentic gathering and sibling review.

    line 130
  3. Distinctive:

    MUST keep gathered output complete (report-to-file for large surfaces).

    line 131
  4. Distinctive:

    MUST compose techniques to fit the task.

    line 132
  5. Distinctive:

    MUST vet before presenting.

    line 133
  6. Distinctive:

    MUST attach provenance + confidence + gaps + techniques-run to the presented signal.

    line 134
  7. Distinctive:

    MUST sensitivity-match the signal to its destination.

    line 135
  8. Distinctive:

    MUST surface (not average) vet disagreements and (not guess past) mid-flight blockers.

    line 136
  9. Distinctive:

    MUST NOT spawn sub-agents from within a sub-agent (depth-1 guardrail).

    line 137

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

/extract-signal

An elastic methodology for turning a noisy source surface into a vetted signal in the form the requester asked for, without contaminating the context that must stay clean. It is a goal + a toolkit + the judgment to compose techniques to fit the task — not a fixed pipeline. The work it does is determined by the context it is invoked with.

Operational owner: this SKILL.md. protocol.yon is its aligned declarative companion. When either changes, update the other and refresh the @STAMP date.

The principle that motivates this skill

Context hygiene comes from RELOCATION, not TRUNCATION. Noisy work happens where noise is cheap — a spawned sub-agent's window, or this skill's own disposable window when it is itself a sub-agent. Only the signal reaches the place that must stay clean. The gathering area is never shrunk to fit an arbitrary size.

Inference & contracts (read the call, don't demand a form)

The skill infers its parameters from how it was invoked; explicit overrides are accepted but never required:

  • What signal — the question to answer.
  • What form — the output shape (see menu). Inferred from the ask ("as a risk-list", "is it ready?", "what are the options").
  • Stakes — inferred from consequence; drives vetting depth.
  • Mode & output — inferred per below.

Modes & output (inferred)

  • Agentic (default — the normal call). The root agent owns composition, gathering dispatch and review dispatch. Invoke selected prime-* skills at the root, so their workers are leaves. For a cold opinion, the root dispatches a separate sibling reviewer with the question, primary-source pointers and artifact, without the gatherer's conclusions or lead rationale. Gatherers and reviewers never orchestrate each other. The root integrates and returns the signal inline unless a file is specified.
  • In-session / new-session (it IS the agent). extract-signal gathers and vets directly as the running agent; output inline by default, to a file if specified. (When it is itself a dispatched sub-agent, this is the same path: it works inline in its disposable window and does NOT spawn further sub-agents — depth-1 guardrail; the isolation already protects the caller.) In a leaf, use the bounded direct-gather procedure from its primed brief, not a prime-* invocation that requires another worker. Run permitted vetting inline with nested delegation suppressed. Disclose same-context dependence; it is not a cold opinion. If material vetting requires an independent opinion, return findings and that unmet requirement to the root before a readiness verdict.

The methodology (elastic — compose, don't follow blindly)

  1. Frame the inferred signal request (what · form · stakes).
  2. Compose the technique set for this task and run it (in the mode above):
    • Gather — /prime-sweep (many sources) · /prime-fetch (one noisy call) · /prime-expand (vague request → questions + named sources first).
    • Diverge — /insight-explore when the signal needs options/hypotheses generated before they can be vetted.
    • Vet — /insight-critique (poke holes) → /insight-assess (evidence solid? what does it imply?).
    • Cold opinion — a fresh, no-prior-framing read (/cold-review-style) as a drift guard.
  3. Vet proportionally to stakes — cheap/low-stakes → a quick critique may suffice; material/high-stakes → full critique + assess + cold opinion. Reach for the cold opinion whenever the lead has been deep in the material.
  4. Present the signal in the requested form (next two sections govern how).

Output contract — the signal carries its provenance

Whatever the form, the presentation MUST include:

  • the signal in the requested form;
  • provenance — source:line (or equivalent) for load-bearing claims;
  • confidence + residual gaps (what wasn't determined and why);
  • which techniques ran (so the caller can judge the vetting depth).

Sensitivity vs destination (do not over-expose the signal)

Signal inherits the sensitivity of what it was extracted from. Before presenting:

  • Tag the signal's sensitivity (e.g. internal / restricted / public).
  • The destination must be cleared for that sensitivity. If the output is bound for a lower-trust or external/public destination than the signal warrants, flag it and withhold the sensitive parts rather than present them. Never let internal detail flow into a public-bound artifact by default.

Failure & contradiction handling

  • Empty gather → report "no signal found", with what was searched. Never fabricate signal to fill the form.
  • Vet disagreement (/insight-assess vs the cold opinion) → surface the split with both positions; do not silently average to a false consensus.
  • Mid-flight blocker — if extraction hits a decision only the caller/handler can make, surface it and pause that line; do not guess past it.

Bounds

  • Concurrency — the root owns at most 3 parallel leaf workers, depth-1. Every composed technique inherits that limit; an active mode owns dispatch rather than adding another layer.
  • Termination — before work, bind finite tool-call, wave and elapsed-time limits to the invocation. Before dispatch also bind monitoring, cancellation and terminal success/failure/timeout outcomes. Without those controls, stop the dependent agentic route. Stop at the first exhausted bound or no-new-signal wave; retain partial findings and name capped or unperformed vetting. Do not retry or extend automatically.

Signal forms (reference menu — any custom form allowed)

FormTypically pairs
verdict / yes-nogather → critique → assess (+ cold if material)
ranked optionsinsight-explore → assess → present ranked
risk-listprime-fetch/sweep → critique → present risks
map / inventoryprime-sweep → present structured map
count / metricprime-fetch → verify → present number + method
bill-of-healthprime-sweep → critique → assess → cold → present report

Examples (illustrative — the lead composes to fit the actual call)

1 · Agentic + high-stakes → bill-of-health

Call: extract-signal: is @acme/parser ready to ship publicly? Infers: signal = release-readiness · form = bill-of-health · stakes = high · mode = agentic (default) · output = inline to caller. Composes: root invokes prime-sweep to dispatch leaf gathering → root applies inline critique and assess → root dispatches a separate cold sibling reviewer → root returns the bill-of-health. Returns: verdict + per-area findings with source:line, confidence, residual gaps, techniques-run.

2 · In-session inline + options → ranked-options

Call (running as the session): extract-signal: what are our options for the cache layer? inline. Infers: form = ranked-options · stakes = moderate · mode = in-session (it IS the agent) · output = inline. Composes: insight-explore (3+ options) → insight-assess (score) → present ranked. Lighter vet — no cold opinion at moderate stakes. Returns: ranked options + rationale + provenance + gaps.

3 · Output-to-file + moderate → risk-list

Call: extract-signal: risks in this diff → write to risks.md Infers: form = risk-list · output = file (risks.md) · stakes = moderate · mode = agentic. Composes: prime-fetch the diff → insight-critique (hunt risks) → write a severity-ranked risk-list to the file. Writes: risks.md — each risk with severity + source:line + confidence.

4 · Sensitivity-edge (the guard fires)

Call: extract-signal: summarize the auth module for the public README Infers: signal sensitivity = internal · destination = public README. Acts: sensitivity (internal) > destination (public) → withhold internal detail, flag it — present only the public-safe surface and tell the caller what was withheld and why. Never auto-leaks internal detail into a public artifact.

Rules

  • MUST infer the signal request from the call; MUST NOT demand a rigid input form.
  • MUST default to root-owned agentic gathering and sibling review; when it IS the agent, work inline with output inline-by-default or to a file if specified.
  • MUST keep gathered output complete (report-to-file for large surfaces); MUST NOT impose an arbitrary word/size cap on gathering.
  • MUST compose techniques to fit the task; MUST NOT run a fixed sequence regardless of the signal.
  • MUST vet before presenting; depth MUST scale with stakes.
  • MUST attach provenance + confidence + gaps + techniques-run to the presented signal.
  • MUST sensitivity-match the signal to its destination; MUST NOT over-expose internal signal to a public/external destination.
  • MUST surface (not average) vet disagreements and (not guess past) mid-flight blockers.
  • MUST NOT spawn sub-agents from within a sub-agent (depth-1 guardrail).

Pairs with

  • /prime-sweep, /prime-fetch, /prime-expand — gather techniques.
  • /insight-explore — divergent generation when candidates are needed first.
  • /insight-critique, /insight-assess — the vetting engine.
  • /cold-review — the second-cold-opinion shape.
  • /multi-agent-mode — the session posture this runs inside.
  • /caller-options — surfaces the venue/output/form choices.

Evolution (logged for v2+)

A signal ledger/cache (reuse prior extractions) and signal-quality metrics are deferred — not yet in scope.

Human output. This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output contract (human-output/SKILL.md).

Self-improvement. On completion, run the Self-Improvement Protocol (self-improve/SKILL.md): apply its signal taxonomy and threshold to this run; surface any surviving proposal for handler approval. Conservative — silent otherwise. Never auto-apply.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.